Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Prima Facie" evidence of Ohio election fraud -- Pacifica Radio

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:25 PM
Original message
"Prima Facie" evidence of Ohio election fraud -- Pacifica Radio
Edited on Sun Nov-28-04 09:19 PM by jamboi
This is huge folks: Listening to Pacifica this afternoon after the Madsen interview a Pacifica reporter came on with breaking news from Ohio. In addition to the encouraging news about Jackson's rally and Kerry's interest in full investigations they went on to say that the lawyers that were contesting the Ohio election now have "Prima Facie evidence" of election fraud. This means literally "on its face" ie. it is exactly as it appears, ie. substantial and not requiring further backing proof to be established. Basically votes appear to have been shifted from the Kerry column to the Bush column. The Pacifica reporter had not written the article, but pointed listeners for more on how all this was figured out and other details to read the following article and read about the comparison of the votes for the democratic judge and the vote for Kerry, in about the middle of the article:

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/94...

If the Pacifica reporter himself writes up an article it will be clearer exactly how significant this is and will likely use the phrase "Prima Facie" as he did on the air.

This other thread is reporting the same news, just stated in a different way.

"Stand and Fight Donating member Sun Nov-28-04 05:07 PM
Jesse Jackson Latest News as of 11/28/04 at 7:10pm CSTBREAKING NEWS FROM OHIO 7:03pm CST:

Columbus, Ohio

JJ in Ohio at large African-American church. Press conference before rally in which lead attorney openly stated that they discovered the method by which the election in Ohio was rigged for G.W. Bush. As many as 65,000 votes were lifted from the Kerry column to the Bush column. Discovered from parallel race (Connally). Democratic Supreme Court justice ended up getting more votes than Kerry did. Attorneys are surmising that the only way this could have happened is if votes were lifted from Kerry to Bush. They have the actual vote counts.

--Evan Davis

http://www.freepress.org

I got this information from the live interview with Evan Davis at the following web address:
http://www.kpft.org /"

Thattopic is found at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Also this DU topic covers the same issue in a different light and gives more details on the vote shifting:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Here's a DU topic that has notes from a different observer to the Jackson press conference where the lawyers spoke.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

This thread is about an AirAmerica reporter on the Laura Flanders show also at the press conference.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

JamBoi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
New Earth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. why dont i see that phrase used in the article?
prima gracia???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. That article doesn't use the phrase, the reporter did on the air. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flint-oid Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
75. Radio Link: How the Vote was Rigged
Link to the Pacific piece.
This is comments from the attorney, but not the reporter's intro, where the reporter uses the term primi facia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #75
84. See the transcript in my posting below. (#82) n/t
Edited on Mon Nov-29-04 08:49 PM by jamboi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. Confirmed.
I heard the reporter use the term "prima facie evidence" on the air as well in relation to this story.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #19
62. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
berniew1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #62
105. Strong indications of major electronic glitches or fraud in Ohio counties
Strong indications of major electronic glitches or fraud in Ohio in several counties

In analyzing the still-unofficial results, the totals reveal that C. Ellen Connally, an African-American Democratic candidate from Cleveland running for Ohio Chief Justice, received more than votes than Kerry in many counties. For example in Butler County, Connally received 5347 more votes than Kerry. The list of the counties where Connally actually outpolled Kerry include Auglaize, Brown, Butler, Clermont, Darke, Highland, Mercer, Miami, Putnam, Shelby, Van Wert, and Warren.

The reason the Kerry vote counts are suspect is because Connelly, a retired African-American judge, was vastly outspent in her race, and did not have the visibility of the presidential race. Thus for a more obscure Democratic candidate, farther down on the ticket, to get many more votes statewide than Kerry, suggests something happened to suggest there may have been a transfer of Kerry votes to Bush. ""Statistically, Kerry, as the Democratic presidential candidate, should have more votes than Connally. In a presidential election, most voters have the priority of casting a vote for president and the votes for president are almost always much higher than those of candidates farther down the ticket. As of election night, 5,481,804 votes were counted for Bush and Kerry. 4,327,270 votes were counted for Moyer and Connally.

""This looks like a computer glitch or a computer fix,"" said Bob Fitrakis, a lawyer, political scientist and Editor of the Columbus Free Press (http://freepres.org ) who has written about election irregularities since Bush was declared the winner. Fitrakis is among the team of lawyers who announced they would soon file an election challenge in the states Supreme Court.

http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/warren.htm
http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/alpage.htm
www.flcv.com/ohiov04.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Redirect
I'm going to redirect people to the thread that I have already started on this issue:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. We were probably typing simultaneously. :-) I'm okay with multiple threads
on this enormous breaking news. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
22. jamboi's title is more descriptive. eom
-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave502d Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
3. How come Jackson is always the last DEM standing?i thank him. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. He's a Dem, but what are the others doing for us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrUnderhill Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
4. So if Kerry doesn't win a particular state... no other Democrat can win
in a statewide election?

This doesn't make much sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TimeToGo Donating Member (656 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Yea, I agree
I hope it leads somewhere, but that isn't evidence -- it may be cause for concern or suspicion, but it isn't evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. This absolutely IS very, very strong evidence. It doesn't give the nuts &
bolts of how the vote shifting was accomplished, no, but it is the smoke off of the smoking gun. Now they just have to locate the discarded gun. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madozone Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #14
60. Comparing two races proves nothing
In my ward in Wisconsin, where I was an election judge and was able to see the ballots themselves as we inspected them at the end of the night, Senator Feingold received over one hundred more votes than John Kerry (out of ~1800). My ward heavily favors Democrats. We had a number of ballots (~100, maybe more) that voted straight Democrat except for President. As such I can't accept this analysis as any kind of indication of fraud. It is suspicious, but not inconceivable, that Kerry's support would be softer than another Democrat's. Reading these boards provides plenty of evidence of the fact that the Democratic party has hardly solidified its base to the extent that the GOP did, and those defections cost Kerry the election. Why the party is having that problem is up for debate, but in any case we cannot compare two distinct races and conclude that one involved fraud.

This discrepancy can be meaningful when set alongside other discrepancies, including the exit polls if they happen to include data on this race for Chief Justice. If the exit polls are right about Chief Justice but wrong about Kerry, then there is evidence of fraud, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mulethree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #60
99. Sad
I agree with you completely.

But if you look at this particular race for Chief Justice:

The incumbent is really, blatantly, slimy and corrupt, and the challenger looks pretty great - many years judging 'real people' cases; born, raised, schooled in Ohio; breast cancer surviver; tons of community work, and a son in the marines.

It doesn't surprise me that republicans defected to vote against Moyer or that Connally did so well despite her opponents insurance-lobby funded campaign.

I don't want to hear about funding or party-line voting or a comparison between Kerry and Connally as 'evidence'.

I voted Kucinich in the Primary and have never voted a straight party line (came from Queens NYC and the 'party machine' put up some real losers)

Circumstantial, coincidental and un-provable. Like trying to prove Florida fraud based on Dixiecrat votes without doing the homework to see that they're predictably cross-voters.

These cases hurt credibility and there are so many credible and provable lines that will be glossed over as a result.

Oh yeah, the sad part - this lady would have won if not for the disenfranchisement. They need to ask her advise instead of casting a shadow on her achievement of nearly unseating the most powerful, and possibly most corrupt, official in Ohio.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. The idea is that it makes no sense that the judge's and Kerry's vote total
came out so differently given that historically people vote extremely predictable for judge races on a straight party line basis. Hope that clears it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArthurDent Donating Member (191 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. except that
the judge wasn't on the Dem line. The Sup Ct race in Ohio is non-partisan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
29. Cliff Arnebeck just said on LF that Conally is dem. Don't know if that
appears on the ballot or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrUnderhill Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Sure it does.
Or at least it easily could.

What's her story? Is the race partisan? Was she running against a tainted candidate? Maybe he made a controversial decision?

People may not even know the party affiliation of a judge in Ohio (I don't know). We had a couple Democrats win court spots here in NC despite Bush winning handily. Was this evidence Kerry actually won the state? Bowles outperformed him despite being a "down-ticket" race. What does this prove?

It's always possible that some Democrat is more viable in a particular state than the guy at the head of a ticket. Or it's a local thing - one candidate could have local popularity that another lacks.

There just isn't enough here to jump on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #15
36. If you look into the details you'll see doesn't make sense -> prima facie
evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrUnderhill Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. Only if "prima facia" has suddenly started to mean "wishful thinking"
There were two other state-wide supreme court races and the Democrat did substantially worse in both of them. How (within this theory) could the Republican win by over 20% if the head of the ticket only won by 2.5% ???

Almost 400,000 voters voted for a Republican for one Supreme court seat but a Democrat for Connally's seat. That isn't "party-line" voting. It's evidence that "all politics is local" and that the ballots in Ohio don't show the party affiliation of court candidates.

The crux of this whole argument assumes there is no such thing as "split ticket" voting. But there is.

I guess if we went over to freeperville we would see that Bush actually won PA? I mean... there's a state-wide down-ballot race there where the Republican won handily... obvious proof that Kerry "stole" that state... right??? < /sarcasm>

Heck, in Ohio, the republicans had a state-wide down-ballot race they won by 1.5 million votes. How could he have received almost 600,000 more votes than the head of his own ticket?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ducks In A Row Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
45. here in oregon the Dem SOS and Dem Senator receive more votes than
Kerry, and we aren't a "Diebold" state. And although Kerry won the state by a comfortable margin, that damn anti-gay marriage piece of crap passed.

So, voters can be complex. Not everyone is a straight ticket kind of voter, and we had a number of third party candidates on the ballots
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #45
57. don't forget....
our votes are counted with optiscans
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
83. I agree
Just think about the implications if you turned this around. I can just imagine Freepers saying that since Bush won Colorado, how in the world could Pete Coors have lost? The Democrats must have cheated!

IMHO opinion we need better evidence than this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinfoil_beret Donating Member (204 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
5. Wow!
I don't know that I'd necessarily call it prima facie evidence, but it is very suspicious!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. "Prima Facie" is what the lawyers called it according to the reporter. n/t
Edited on Sun Nov-28-04 09:19 PM by jamboi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ValleyGirl Donating Member (90 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Prima Facie
Doesn't prima facie basically mean that something at first glance appears a certain way without technically being proven yet? I'd say that term applies here.

Would a manual recount uncover these alleged vote liftings or is OH shrouded in mysterious e-voting machines w/ no trail? I hope this turns out to be true and proven!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Same thing happened in New Mexico
Check out the county and the precinct totals. Use the drop down menus.

<http://65.160.159.96/County0.htm >
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #16
48. Same thing happened if FL
Betty Castor got more votes than John Kerry. Yet the Senate race had a strong 3rd party candidate and there were 1000's of more undervotes in the Senate race.

Funny how this is happening all over the country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. Mix. Most of Ohio was punch card. A few counties had machines. Recount
should uncover problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #12
20. Pretty F'nn airtight
I knew the republicans were to stupid to hack it right. :headbang:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rehema Donating Member (184 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
25. Here is one legal definition of "Prima Facia"
Legal Terms - Prima FacIA and Prima FacIE

Prima Facia Information: That level of evidence that proves all essential elements of a claim. You cannot make a prima facia case without sufficient evidence. Literally, the phrase means "on its face."

PRIMA-FACIE, EVIDENCE, CASE - Latin for "at first view."
Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted. A prima-facie case is a lawsuit that alleges facts adequate to prove the underlying conduct supporting the cause of action and thereby prevail
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #12
30. Not usually the meaning in law
at least not that I'm aware of --

1. True, authentic, or adequate at first sight; ostensible: prima facie credibility.
2. Evident without proof or reasoning; obvious: a prima facie violation of the treaty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #12
58. "prima facie"
Edited on Mon Nov-29-04 01:32 AM by Viva_La_Revolution
Latin for 'at first view'


Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.

A prima-facie case is a lawsuit that alleges facts adequate to prove the underlying conduct supporting the cause of action and thereby prevail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #12
65. It means "on the face of it" or basic.
somtimes Obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critical Thinker Donating Member (118 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
17. consulting the dictionary, prima facie evidence
is NOT irrefutable proof. From Websters:

\Pri"ma fa"ci*e\ abl. of facies appearance.]
At first view; on the first appearance.

{Prima facie evidence} (of a fact) (Law), evidence which is
sufficient to establish the fact unless rebutted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Okay, I updated the posting w/ your info. Thanks! n/t
Edited on Sun Nov-28-04 08:53 PM by jamboi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. Legally, your second definition is better.
Prima facie evidence establishes a fact unless it is rebutted. In this case, if the attorneys have prima facie evidence of fraud, that means that fraud is established by this evidence. The defendant (Bush, presumably) now needs to prove that there was no fraud. Prima facie evidence (if these attorneys have that kind of evidence) shifts the burden of proof onto the other party.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debbie13 Donating Member (176 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
23. I feel like the tide is finally starting to turn.
great work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinfoil_beret Donating Member (204 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
26. This looks suspicious.
Warren County, from http://www.co.warren.oh.us/bdelec/voting_results_publis... with 100% precincts reporting.

Bush 68,035 (72%)
Kerry 26,043 (27%)

Connally 28,470 (39%)
Moyer 44,961 (61%)

Connally received 2,427 more votes than Kerry.
Moyer received 23,074 LESS votes than Bush.

That doesn't compute. From which county does Connally hail?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evening Star Donating Member (73 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
27. Air America Radio Coming NOW on the Laura Fanders Show
Interview with someone who traveled with JJ today

http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evening Star Donating Member (73 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. One of our lead attorney's in OHIO
http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/html/eng/2138-AA...

Cliff Arnebeck


was with JJ today

they will be looking at machines & documents tomorrow and filing the complaint/suit on Wed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimnm Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
28. The only election that counts!
Contrary to what most people think..the only votes that count are the ones that happen on December 13 when each states electors meet in their respective capitals. At this meeting, the electors sign the 'Certificate of Vote,' which is sealed and delivered to the Office of the President of the United States Senate. In my estimation that happens in 15 days so for all those holding out hope for a turn around in the election...GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jimnm Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Hmmmm
Just pragmatic!! Doesnt your post violate DU rules about personal attacks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. Maybe theirs was OtT but your post was unnecessarily provactive too. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #33
44. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. Actually Jan 6 is the drop dead date, when the envelopes are opened
But the short period of time left is exactly why the lawsuit to get going on the recount was filed already. Time is short, but we still have a excellent fighting chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimnm Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #37
73. No so.
"3 U.S.C. Section 5" protects the votes that are presented to the congress. Once the electors vote nothing can be done about it until the congress gets it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burn the bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #28
39. FRAUD supercedes it. Bush will never be the President
of the American people. He won by fraud the first time, and he used fraud this time. I hope he rots in prison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsascj Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #28
40. What are you anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimnm Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #40
72. What am I?
I'm an American tired of many who offer nothing but efforts to divide the citizenry of this great country. My original post was in fact true. The constitutions says that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress". All states have fashioned a way for the populace to chose a set of electors depending on who wins the popular vote. Constitutionally, the electors are the ones who elect the president. Once the Electors votes are sent to the congress then the only way the election can be altered is by one senator and on representative objecting to the result. If that happens then congress selects the president and the vice president. If congress doesn't act by March then the vice president becomes acting president until the congress moves. So once the electors vote then the result is final until the congress gets a shot at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #72
90. I'm for separation....Let's divide the country....Let the thieves send
Edited on Mon Nov-29-04 11:34 PM by higher class
their children off to fight for corporations, make war until the 30th century, have lily white reverends and follower-swallowers, fetus growing populace, no stem cells or street drugs including medical marijuana, and gun ready-loaded society with their banks and corporations taking them, willingly. Let them write their constitution from scratch. Let them design their own flag perhaps in the symbol of a cross and a rovian.

We'll keep our flag and constitution and apply it as intended. And we'll be OK with dealing with Europe, Africa, Venezuela, Cuba and the rest of the Western Hemisphere, and Asia-South Pacific - the whole world - even the Cross Coporation Republic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #90
95. Tempting isn't it. :-) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cowboy Joe2k Donating Member (279 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #28
70. This is not a matter of This Election! This is about the next one!
And the one after that? Are you rely so concerned that We the People of the United States Want our right to Vote??

We know how we can win the next one, and that is all that matters. the only way Any of the Human Race will win out over the Computers, is if our votes count.

It is a matter of Knowing what we need to do to take our country back. If we do not pay attention to this issue now, we will lose this right, the right to vote. forever.

That is why you are trying so hard to bury this post. You know that if too many people learn the truth, the truth will set us free.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimnm Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #70
74. Not Burying.....participating...eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cowboy Joe2k Donating Member (279 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #28
92. No Jimnm
The only Election that counts are the ones that have not happened yet.

The 2000 Selection did not count at all. and the 04 election did not count because is was Un-Constitutional.

We will take back our Election Process if we fail to do anything else. The People of the World are coming together and there is nothing you can do to stop us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsascj Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
41. Okay...
since I don't understand a lot of this...

How do they fritz with punch cards? Are these cards punched, then read by a computer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Read by computer then tabulated by unprotected MS Windows running MSAccess
So most likely it would be done during the tabulation process, which is perhaps what was happening behind closed doors in Warren Co???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsascj Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #43
53. Ah ha...
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bj2110 Donating Member (802 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
46. Legal Definition - Prima Facie
Edited on Sun Nov-28-04 10:10 PM by bj2110
"Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted."

"A prima-facie case is a lawsuit that alleges facts adequate to prove the underlying conduct supporting the cause of action and thereby prevail."


Doesn't necessarily mean they have any smoking gun. But, they must think highly enough of whatever they have to think that a case can be built around it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dewaldd Donating Member (185 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
47. JACKSON'S CONNALLY NUMBERS ARE ALL WRONG!!!
I have posted this many times already.....


The information is all at the Secretary of State website: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos//results/2004/main.htm

I posted my spreadsheet here: http://www.geocities.com/boycott_sinclair/prez-vs-supre ...

Jackson's numbers are completely wrong.

Statewide, Kerry got 640,677 more votes than Connally. There are 11 counties where Connally beat out Kerry. The numbers in those counties only add up to 19,350.

There are also a fairly equivalent number of counties where the Republican Supreme Court candidate Moyer beat out Bush; they add up to 15,509. I don't see conspiracy in these numbers. They look like noise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bj2110 Donating Member (802 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Are you looking at margins or totals? I couldn't get to your spreadsheet.
Jackson was speaking in terms of margins. Not sure if he was right or wrong, but that's the way I understood it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. If they really are using these as evidence
Don't you think they'd have numbers they can produce and defend?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drummer55 Donating Member (306 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. Got it Jacksons Numbers are right Its the margins their talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nodictators Donating Member (977 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #47
81. Instant Analysis: Here is a way to view the Ohio data easily
Edited on Mon Nov-29-04 07:58 PM by nodictators
The percentages shown are Connally's divided by Moyer's vote counts, and likewise Kerry/Bush. So, for instance,in Cuyahoga Kerry had 200.9% and beat Bush by 2-to-1. Connally had 147.8% and ran weaker than Kerry did, as she did in most Dem counties. The paradox is: Why did Connally, a black retired judge, do comparatively well in Repub counties. This method includes the adjustment for the significantly lower number of total votes in the Chief Justice race.

Notice that in most all Repub counties Connally did a lot better against Moyer than Kerry did against Bush. Yet she is down-the-ballot and had a very small campaign budget compared to the Repub Moyer. The total votes in the Ohio Chief Justice race was 4.3 million vs. 5.4 million in the presidential race. Data links below.

County --Connally% -- Kerry%
Adams -- 80.2% -- 56.0%
Allen -- 57.1% -- 50.0%
Ashland -- 55.4% -- 52.7%
Ashtabula -- 103.9% -- 114.2%
Athens -- 146.3% -- 175.2%
Auglaize -- 64.0% -- 34.9%
Belmont -- 108.0% -- 113.0%
Brown -- 87.5% -- 56.6%
Butler -- 89.4% -- 50.8%
Carroll -- 66.4% -- 82.2%
Champaign -- 71.3% -- 59.1%
Clark -- 88.2% -- 95.3%
Clermont -- 68.8% -- 41.0%
Clinton -- 56.6% -- 41.5%
Columbiana -- 90.3% -- 90.8%
Coshocton -- 65.7% -- 74.1%
Crawford -- 70.2% -- 55.8%
Cuyahoga -- 147.8% -- 200.9%
Darke -- 70.7% -- 42.9%
Defiance -- 73.2% -- 60.7%
Delaware -- 59.3% -- 50.7%
Erie -- 52.0% -- 114.6%
Fairfield -- 58.8% -- 57.8%
Fayette -- 63.0% -- 58.8%
Franklin -- 86.4% -- 117.7%
Fulton -- 63.2% -- 60.2%
Gallia -- 78.1% -- 62.4%
Geauga -- 73.0% -- 65.3%
Greene -- 76.6% -- 62.7%
Guernsey -- 69.4% -- 77.8%
Hamilton -- 95.0% -- 88.6%
Hancock -- 51.0% -- 40.8%
Hardin -- 68.6% -- 57.7%
Harrison -- 77.7% -- 88.6%
Henry -- 52.1% -- 51.5%
Highland -- 72.9% -- 50.6%
Hocking -- 77.4% -- 88.9%
Holmes -- 41.1% -- 31.6%
Huron -- 53.7% -- 71.1%
Jackson -- 72.6% -- 65.8%
Jefferson -- 97.6% -- 110.6%
Knox -- 58.5% -- 57.6%
Lake -- 91.5% -- 94.8%
Lawrence -- 93.0% -- 78.2%
Licking -- 66.1% -- 61.0%
Logan -- 63.2% -- 47.2%
Lorain -- 97.8% -- 128.1%
Lucas -- 117.9% -- 150.9%
Madison -- 68.6% -- 55.6%
Mahoning -- 103.7% -- 169.9%
Marion -- 64.1% -- 68.7%
Medina -- 77.3% -- 75.2%
Meigs -- 92.8% -- 70.4%
Mercer -- 69.0% -- 32.8%
Miami -- 70.7% -- 51.6%
Monroe -- 103.4% -- 123.6%
Montgomery -- 93.1% -- 102.6%
Morgan -- 77.7% -- 76.0%
Morrow -- 66.6% -- 54.8%
Muskingum -- 74.4% -- 73.3%
Noble -- 74.0% -- 68.9%
Ottawa -- 71.3% -- 92.3%
Paulding -- 83.3% -- 58.3%
Perry -- 85.6% -- 92.8%
Pickaway -- 71.1% -- 60.5%
Pike -- 87.8% -- 91.9%
Portage -- 98.5% -- 113.9%
Preble -- 67.0% -- 53.0%
Putnam -- 51.4% -- 30.6%
Richland -- 69.5% -- 66.4%
Ross -- 74.9% -- 80.9%
Sandusky -- 62.0% -- 78.0%
Scioto -- 78.7% -- 91.6%
Seneca -- 59.2% -- 68.9%
Shelby -- 80.1% -- 40.0%
Stark -- 70.8% -- 102.7%
Summit -- 93.0% -- 131.6%
Trumbull -- 97.1% -- 162.4%
Tuscarawas -- 73.7% -- 79.0%
Union -- 57.9% -- 42.0%
Van Wert -- 59.6% -- 38.4%
Vinton -- 92.4% -- 81.8%
Warren -- 63.0% -- 38.2%
Washington -- 71.3% -- 71.3%
Wayne -- 54.4% -- 61.9%
Williams -- 68.2% -- 53.6%
Wood -- 85.8% -- 86.6%
Wyandot -- 48.0% -- 51.1%
Total -- 87.5% -- 95.1%
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/results/2004/gen/supCour...
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/results/2004/gen/pres.ht...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
52. ""Prima Facie" evidence definition
thank you jamboi!!!!!!!!!!
this may help some with the legality of prima facie



Prima-Facie, Evidence, Case *

PRIMA-FACIE, EVIDENCE, CASE - Latin for "at first view."

Evidence that is sufficient to raise a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question unless rebutted.

A prima-facie case is a lawsuit that alleges facts adequate to prove the underlying conduct supporting the cause of action and thereby prevail. Below's an example dealing with employment discrimination claims.

A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII by establishing that (1) he or she belongs to a racial minority; (2) he or she applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (3) he or she was rejected for the position despite his or her qualifications; and (4) the position remained open after his or her rejection and the employer continued to seek applications from other people with similar qualifications to the plaintiff. McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). In Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981), the Supreme Court stated that"he burden of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not onerous."

After the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the plaintiff's rejection. Id. If the employer sustains the burden, the plaintiff then has the opportunity to present evidence showing that the employer's stated reason for the rejection was merely pretextual. Id.; see also McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 807; Lindahl, 930 F.2d at 1437 ("The defendant's articulation of a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason serves . . . to shift the burden back to the plaintiff to raise a genuine factual question as to whether the proffered reason is pretextual.") (quoting Lowe, 775 F.2d at 1008).

The third step does not require that a plaintiff prove that "he was rejected because of his protected status." The plaintiff must only show in step three that "despite his qualifications, he was rejected." McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. The two standards are quite different. The McDonnell Douglas test merely requires that a plaintiff raise an inference of disparate treatment to establish a prima facie case, not actual proof of such treatment.

Under McDonnell Douglas, to establish his prima facie case, the plaintiff need not prove that discrimination was the motivating factor in his dismissal. All he must do is raise an inference that such misconduct occurred.

A plaintiff can also establish a prima facie case by "offering evidence adequate to create an inference that an employment decision was based on a discriminatory criteria illegal under ." Mitchell v. Office of the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools, 805 F.2d 844, 846 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 358 (1977)); see Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (plaintiff can establish prima facie case of disparate treatment without satisfying McDonnell Douglas test if he or she provides evidence suggesting rejection was based on discriminatory criteria), amended, 784 F.2d 1407 (1986). A plaintiff who provides such evidence for his or her prima facie case may be able to survive summary judgment on this evidence alone. Lowe, 775 F.2d at 1008.

Although "the mere existence of a prima facie case, based on the minimum evidence necessary to raise a McDonnell Douglas presumption, does not preclude summary judgment," Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 890 (9th Cir. 1994), "the plaintiff need produce very little evidence of discriminatory motive to raise a genuine issue of fact" as to pretext. Lindahl, 930 F.2d at 1437. In fact, any indication of discriminatory motive . . . may suffice to raise a question that can only be resolved by a factfinder. Once a prima facie case is established . . . summary judgment for the defendant will ordinarily not be appropriate on any ground relating to the merits because the crux of a Title VII dispute is the elusive factual question of intentional discrimination. Id. at 1438 (quoting Lowe, 775 F.2d at 1009) (citation omitted). Thus, burden at the summary judgment stage is not great.

The first blush; the first view or appearance of the business; as, the holder of a bill of exchange, indorsed in blank, is prima facie its owner.

Prima facie evidence of a fact, is in law sufficient to establish the fact, unless rebutted. For example, when buildings are fired by sparks emitted from a locomotive engine passing along the road, it is prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of those who have the charge of it.
--b--

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-28-04 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
54. kick
:dem:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
55. Anybody get a transcript or a Pacifica press release covering this?n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 03:48 AM
Response to Reply #55
71. A MUST-HEAR: LINK TO AN INTERVIEW W/ THE LAWYER
Interview w/ Cliff Arnebeck by Pacifica reporter Evan Davis where he talks about the strategy they are going to use to expose the election fraud.:
http://pacifica.org/programs/election2004/20041128-HowT...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #71
88. Post #82 has the transcript n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
56. The Jesse Jackson angle will definitley get airplay. The Prima Facie
evidence part may or may not immediately rise to the surface. If someone can find anything in the media, indy or MSM, please post it here.

Thanks!

JamBoi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
senegal1 Donating Member (489 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #56
59. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
61. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
senegal1 Donating Member (489 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #61
63. ok kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #63
64. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. Why are you repeatedly posting this everywhere?
So you have a theory? It's an okay theory but it isn't spectacular. It isn't as though you invented the wheel. Enough posting already! JMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 03:07 AM
Response to Reply #66
67. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #67
69. Name calling is forbidden by our Board rules. I suggest you adhere to them
I am unaware that DU exists for your self promotion. I am delighted for you that they took the time to respond. So did I .I just don't need to read it a million times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rainbow4321 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 03:15 AM
Response to Original message
68. History of ES & S/Diebold
From a 1992 article/webpage...boy, these companies ownerships have made the rounds in the neocon elite. And where the hell do they get off putting "trade secret agreements" ahead of making sure all the votes were accounted for...the words "comprehensive court order" sounds like things could get messy..ugh.

http://www.polizeros.com/stories/2002/11/08/votingMachi...


In fact, machines have failed in actual use -- choices have been displayed that were not selected by the voters, and votes have been mis-recorded (in some cases losing them entirely, or shifting them to other ballot positions). Some of the machines enter a lock-down mode when the polls are closed, rendering it impossible to later check that votes could have been cast properly for each candidate or issue. Vendors have tied the hands of election officials and independent examiners by protecting their systems under restrictive trade-secret agreements, making it a felony to inspect the operation of the machines without a comprehensive court order.

<snip>

ES&S, the largest voting machine company in America, claims to have counted 56% of the vote in the last four presidential elections. Again, it's owned by the ultra-conservative Omaha World-Herald Company, the McCarthy Group, and former owners of Business Records Corporation. ES&S was created from a merger between American Information Systems (AIS) and Business Records Corporation. Bob and Todd Urosevich founded AIS in the 1980's. Bob is now president of Diebold-Global, while brother Todd is a vice president at ES&S. Business Records Corp. was partially owned by Cronus, a company that seems to have a lot of connections to the notorious Hunt brothers from Texas, as well as other individuals and entities, including Rothschild, Inc.. Right wing Republicans Howard Ahmanson (who financed AIS) and Nelson Bunker Hunt have both heavily contributed to The Chalcedon Institute, an organization that mandates Christian "dominion" over the world.
<snip>
And so it goes. We have an voting system that appears to be in a constant state of name change and rotating management, but always under the private control of the rich and infamous. Meanwhile, Congress has just passed a law that effectively throws hundreds of millions of dollars at voting machine companies that have a record that includes partisanship, bribery, secrecy, and rampant technical "malfunctions."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #68
76. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
77. MUST HEAR INTERVIEW W/ LAWYER ON PACIFICA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
__Inanna__ Donating Member (246 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #77
85. I hate to be picky
but it says this lawsuit will be filed on or near November 31? There is no 31st in November. This isn't some scam, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. Where does it say that? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ladyhawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
78. To me, the numbers look "hinky," but don't offer definitive proof.
Is there something I haven't read or seen? Or are the lawyers keeping most of the information to themselves? They must have something more than this or they wouldn't be filing suit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gasperc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #78
86. once a hand recount is done of these counties, it expose fraud
Edited on Mon Nov-29-04 09:30 PM by gasperc
then a hand recount would definately expose the problem that the central tabulator was corrupted.

ie if we hand recount 1000 ballots and 600 are for Kerry and 400 are for Bush but then re-run them through the central tabulator computer and we get 500 for Kerry and 500 for Bush then some will have some 'splain to do
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
79. AP on Yahoo: One Month Later, Fight Over Ohio Continues
Rate It Up!!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041...

~snip~

Since then, there have been demands for a recount and complaints about uncounted punch-card votes, disqualified provisional ballots and a ballot-machine error that gave hundreds of extra votes to Bush.


Jackson said too many questions have been raised to let the vote stand without further examination.


"We can live with winning and losing. We cannot live with fraud and stealing," Jackson said Sunday at Mount Hermon Baptist Church.


An attorney for a political advocacy group on Wednesday plans to file a "contest of election." The request requires a single Supreme Court justice to either let the election stand, declare another winner or throw the whole thing out. The loser can appeal to the full seven-member court, which is dominated by Republicans 5-2.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
80. We need a transcript of the radio interview. I guess I'll work on it if
no one else has started it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. Transcription of radio interview w/ Cliff Arnebeck
Edited on Mon Nov-29-04 08:13 PM by jamboi
"Full tilt" Election Fraud Litigation in Ohio: a transcription of an interview with Cliff Arnebeck.

http://www.pacifica.org/programs/election2004/20041128-... ]

Intro from the Pacifica web page:
"A brief interview (2:38) from a press conference interview with Cliff Arnebeck, lead attorney in the Ohio Contest of Election suit which will be filed on or near Nov. 31. Here Cliff explains his theory regarding the method(s) that were used to rig the Ohio election.

Evan Davis, of the Columbus Community Radio Foundation (CCRF) in Columbus, Ohio and FSRN files this report."

Note that separately from this interview the Pacifica reporter Evan Davis reported that Arnebeck had stated what is described below constituted "Prima Facie" evidence of election fraud.

Cliff Arnebeck speaking:
"The only logical explanation is that there was a movement of some 65,000 votes or so that were cast for Kerry into the Bush column. Which created a margin that is approximately the total margin by which Bush was reported to have won Ohio. So our current view of the evidence is that this is where the fix occurred.

"There were a variety of other problems in the election. There was the suppression of black voters in Franklin Co. by shorting machines in black and high Democratic performance districts. There was what we would call a precinct shuffle in Summit Co. and Cuyahuga Co. where a deliberate confusion was created about where people could vote. They cast their provisional ballots...there were election officials were telling them that they could vote in any precinct of the county and it would be counted. And then you've got Blackwell saying they won't be counted.

"Our present feeling is that this is, while a serious conspiracy to violate the civil rights of a protected class of voters namely those of the black race, that this is not where the real fix occurred. This is something we will discuss in the lawsuit, but we intend to focus very, to hone in very agressively in full tilt litigation with full discovery on what we believe is the fraud that occurred in the southern part of the state with the shift of votes.

"Look at the two races in effect the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court race is a benchmark race for the presidential race because both of these races were competitive, they were running neck and neck. All right so this gives you a basis to say "all right what happened in this situation and how does it relate to the other, the benchmark." Now a more ingenious approach might have been if you're going to do this you should have made the adjustment also in the Supreme Court race too, so this wouldn't stand out. This stands out like a sore thumb.

I think what happened is, all this civil rights violation was a red herring intended to stimulate the public interest groups and civil rights organizations to hone in on this, on this horrendous, horrendous attack on the rights of black voters. They thought that's what we would go after, the clock would run out, we wouldn't be able to prove our case. The real fraud occurred in this switching of votes in southern Ohio. That's our present view of the evidence."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #82
89. Do we have a good place to post this on the web? Kos or something? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not_Without_A_Fight Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-04 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #82
104. Thanks for the hard work
George Bush isn't the only one working hard in this country.

Thanks for the transcript, JamBoi. I heard Arnebeck's interview on the radio and I wanted a transcript and to hear more from him.

Thank God, he is working this horrendous problem. So far, he is the only articulate voice that I've heard on this subject. We desperately need 20 more just like him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-04 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
91. Holy moly...
So the lawyers were waiting for THE analysis that would get the margin of votes necessary? Is this it? Is it so straightforward that no judge will be able to deny it?

I am going to bed now -- hoping I wake up to a new world tomorrow...

:kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #91
96. Did you read the transcript of the interview? #82 below n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
93. Hold your horses. The Connally thing is probably NOT a smoking gun
The original free press article has had a correction posted. Summary of the numbers added for clarification:

2000 Butler County

President
Kerry 54,185 34%
Bush 106,735 66%
160,920 votes cast in county for President. Bush won county by 52,550

Chief Justice
Democract Connally 59,532 47%
Republican Moyer 66,625 52%
126,157 votes cast in county for Chief Justice. Moyer won by 7,093

In raw votes, Connally got 5347 more votes than Kerry.


The 45,457 number is Bush's margin of victory over Kerry, 52,550, minus the Moyer margin of victory over Connnally, 7093. It is not clear to me what this number is supposed to indicate.

I'm not sure how signficant all this will end up being. The pattern seems to be about the same as the 2000 results:

Bush,83,680 63.42%
Gore 44,661 33.85%
128,341 votes cast in county for President.

Supreme Court Justice Term commencing Jan. 1, 2001
Deborah Cook 60,936 55.22%
Tim Black 49,417 44.78%
110,353 votes case (85% of presidential total)

Supreme Court Justice Term commencing Jan. 1, 2001
Terrence O'Donnell 58,897 51.93%
Alice Robie Resnick 54,517 48.07%
110,353 votes case (88% of presidential total)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #93
94. pat_k -- look at the table at the bottom of the FreePress Article...
and take into consideration the fact that this may not be the only 'source' of additional votes for Kerry, just an opening blow.

From the bottom of the FreePress Article...
*Chart of the measurement of margin between Connally and Kerry race

A negative sign immediately below means that the margin for Kerry (in his race) was less than the margin for Connally (in her race) by the indicated amount. All counties where Connally's margin exceeded Kerry's by 2,000 votes or more should be on this list. There are 37 such counties.

County Margin Voting system
Adams -2,299 punch card
Allen -4,579 optical scan
Auglaize -6,592 DRE
Brown -4,363 punch card
Butler -45,457 punch card
Champaign -2,252 punch card
Clermont -22,998 optical scan
Clinton -3,429 punch card
Crawford -2,891 punch card
Darke -6,549 punch card
Defiance -2,050 punch card
Delaware -10,431 punch card
Fairfield -4,104 punch card
Geauga -4,433 optical scan
Greene -9,480 punch card
Hamilton -16,289 punch card
Hancock -5,424 optical scan
Highland -3,588 punch card
Holmes -2,393 punch card
Lawrence -2,567 punch card
Licking -6,265 punch card
Logan -3,610 punch card
Madison -2,394 punch card
Medina -3,768 punch card
Mercer -7,127 punch card
Miami -8,869 optical scan
Morrow -2,057 punch card
Pickaway -2,587 DRE
Preble -3,077 punch card
Putnam -5,327 punch card
Richland -3,464 punch card
Shelby -7,544 punch card
Stark -7,300 punch card
Union -2,339 punch card
Warren -24,785 punch card
Washington -2,203 optical scan
Williams -2,662 punch card

In counties listed above, the total margin for Connally (in her race) exceeded the margin for Kerry (in his race) by 257,546 votes.

If the selection criterion is a Connally margin 5,000 better than Kerry's, there are 15 such counties where, collectively, Connally's margin exceeded Kerry's by 190,437 votes.

If the selection criterion is a Connally margin 10,000 better than Kerry's, there are 5 such counties where, collectively, Connally's margin exceeded Kerry's by 119,960.

The seven (7) counties with some type of DRE voting machine are: Auglaize, Franklin, Knox, Lake, Mahoning, Pickaway, Ross. Two (2) of these counties (Auglaize and Pickaway) appear on the list above of counties in which Connally's margin exceeded Kerry's.

The thirteen (13) counties with some type of optical scan machine (not punch card) are: Allen, Ashland, Clermont, Coshocton, Erie, Geauga, Hancock, Hardin, Lucas, Miami, Ottawa, Sandusky, and Washington. Six (6) of these counties (Allen, Clermont, Geauga, Hancock, Miami, and Washington) appear on the list above of counties in which Connally's margin exceeded Kerry's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #94
101. Those numbers ARE NOT what you think
Edited on Tue Nov-30-04 10:46 AM by pat_k
Those numbers are Bush's margin of victory over Kerry, <whatever>, minus the Moyer margin of victory over Connnally, <whatever>. It is not clear to me what this number is supposed to indicate.

See my post above. And see 2000 numbers in that post.

I would love this to be the smoking gun. I'm just urging caution. People are not interpreting the number correctly. They are saying things like "Kerry got ### votes more than Connally." That's not what they are. The Presidential race has a much bigger margin of victory than the Chief Justice races in 2000 too.

As someone pointed out above, they may not ID the judges by party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dzika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
97. Judge to rule Tuesday on part of challenge to Bush victory in Nevada
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/ar...

Judge to rule Tuesday on part of challenge to Bush victory in Nevada

SCOTT SONNER, Associated Press Writer
Monday, November 29, 2004

-snip-
A judge intends to decide Tuesday whether to allow a legal
challenge to move forward aimed at blocking Nevada's five
electoral votes from being cast next month for President
Bush.

Washoe County District Judge Peter Breen said Monday he's
considering setting an evidentiary hearing to determine
whether there are grounds to keep the votes from Bush -- who
carried Nevada by 21,500 votes -- due to allegations of voter
registration fraud and claims some voting machines
malfunctioned.

-snip-
"President Bush is claiming he has a mandate and included in
that is that the state of Nevada stood behind him. Even if
Nevada's five electoral votes will not change the election, it
does have an impact on whether Nevada is part of that
mandate," Dickerson said.

`If there are disenfranchised voters who were illegally
disenfranchised ... then those voters are not having their
will voiced," he said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #97
98. Should JJ visit NV too? :-) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #98
100. Jesse should visit everywhere!
Edited on Tue Nov-30-04 10:36 AM by IndyOp
I am going to be so, so happy for the Reverend Jackson if he can lead this charge to ultimate success! He has fought so hard, for so long -- he deserves a fantastic, amazing, incredible win...

And, yes, I did read the transcript of the Pacifica Radio Interview -- wowwwww!

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinfoil_beret Donating Member (204 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
102. That's not prima facie evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-04 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. The lawyer called in Prima Facie evidence, not moi. ;-) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 01st 2020, 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC